But that we could live life as if playing a musical score, then changing the tonality in a different pitch, thereby perfecting a piece for the final performance. Adversity is an unavoidable event; no matter the effort to avoid it, the encounter inevitably catches up to us.

Can we ever replay it, but in a different pitch? Can the musical score be altered, but this time without the raised voices or the heightened stress? What is it about a certain look, a particular tone, that gets one’s gander up; and while some are tone-deaf and wouldn’t be able to differentiate between a major or a minor score, does the same apply to social graces and the cues that trigger responses otherwise better to be left unsaid?

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal job, preparing, formulating and filing an effective Federal Disability Retirement application, to be filed with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, becomes a necessity in the height of adversity, whether played in B Minor or C Major.

It always appears as if adversity can never be avoided. First, there is the medical condition itself; then, to compound matters, making them worse, there is the pressure of the Agency; and suddenly, one feels as if the musical score so often rehearsed has fallen out of tune, and we begin to wonder if the chords played, the instruments used and the conductor followed, makes any sense at all.

The jumble of life is too often like the mixture of one analogy into another.

In order to sort out the proper “chord” to be played, it is important to consult with an attorney to sort out all of the elements in properly preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application: the documentation to be gathered; the guidance of how the narrative reports would be formulated; the legal memorandum that persuades and the entirety of the Federal Disability Retirement packet that is “effective”, leading to an approval by OPM. Otherwise, your life may remain in adversity in B Minor, or some other discord unanticipated.

How is it measured? What constitutes it – a subjective sensation, an objective judgment, or the loosely aligned combination of both? Is it the quantifiable reaction of others, or the measurable amassing of possessions and the value of the gross aggregate? Is the last one atop a proverbial hill of owning stuff what determines and adjudges the success of a person? How does one analyze a life – at what age, in which stage of the slice, and is there a specific point on a pendulum or spectrum, or is it more of a linear continuum where specificity in a point of historical categorization should be resisted in favor of looking at a wider expanse of a ‘period’ evaluation?

We sometimes state with dismay, “Oh, what a wasted life – a bum at so young an age, into drugs, imprisoned and wasting away.” Then, if it turns out later that the same individual became rehabilitated, worked on the “straight and narrow” proverbial path and “made a name for him/herself”, we revisit our earlier assessment and declare the individual as a paradigm of success.

Or, how about its corollary or opposite: In youth, a paragon of defining what success means, a near-prodigy of everything hoped for: College at the top of the class; great job; early earnings of astronomical proportions; mansion with servants by age 30; self-made billionaire (an aside and a quip, and food for thought: a couple of decades ago, we only heard of “millionaires”; now, there are countless “billionaires”; and now we are on the verge of recognizing the first “trillionaire”; query – is it because there are such people, or is it merely the result that world-wide inflation has steadily made currency more and more worthless and depreciated, or is it a combination of both?); perfect wife, near-perfect children (2 and a half by statistical standards); and the conclusion at age 35: Success.

Then, at age 45, divorce, the kids are mere nuisances, bankruptcy looms on the horizon and criminal prosecution for embezzlement is hinted and rumored. Do we retract the former declaration, or do we bifurcate it by saying: Well, he was successful for the first half of his life, not so much in the middle years, and became a bum, a criminal and a miscreant in his later years? Is it the entirety of an individual’s life to be assessed, or sliced in neat categorizations bifurcated for convenience of excluding the negative in balancing out a person’s achievements, then defining the applicability of what “success” means by sectioning off and cordoning into parts determined by subjective prioritization?

Thus, the concept of “success” is difficult to grasp in a general sense when applied to a person’s life; as an event for targeting, however, it is often focused upon a singularity of outcome.

In filing a Federal Disability Retirement application, to be prepared, formulated and filed by, or on behalf of, a Federal employee or a U.S. Postal worker, the narrow issue of success is quite an easy concept to embrace. Success is to obtain an approval from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, a Federal Disability Retirement annuity. Failure is to not receive it. The “middle ground” of uncertainty in coming to a conclusion is where it has been denied initially, but there are still further stages — the processing of Requesting Reconsideration, an Appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, as well as a Full Petition to the Board, and the final of all finalized steps: an appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

There, it is somewhat more reflective of life itself: Success is still within one’s grasp, but there is still some work ahead to redeem the short-term failure in order to end up in the consequential judgment of a final assessment.

The surreal scene makes for eerie production spots for Science Fiction movies and end-of-world stories of apocalyptic tales — of men in white suits and bubble masks with breathing apparatus combing the countryside. But it is merely a spillage of hazardous material, and a team of men and women who specialize in cleaning the toxic chemicals was called in to manage, contain and clean.

But what of the daily spillage which occurs throughout, in offices, homes and populations unaware? Of the psychological poison which slowly pervades, and the stresses and wreckage incurred by countless innocent victims? Or of the toxicity from hostile work environments which slowly eat away, like those horrors one hears about in far-off countries of flesh-eating bacteria with no cure and no hope?

Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents the Federal or Postal worker from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, must often contend with a toxic environment tantamount to a chemical spill on the side of the interstate highway. And like such a scene, the long and arduous wait for the HazMat team to arrive; the blare of ambulances traveling at dangerously high speeds along the shoulder of the road; the aromatic revulsion from the spillage pervading, slowing seeping, and one wonders: is the smell itself harmful?

On a hot summer’s day, the toxicity seems to exponentially pervade, and the lungs which once expanded with the freshness of the air, deflates and constricts. But who is the designated HazMat team for the Federal or Postal employee who is subjected to similar treatment, but caught within the web of hostility, aggressive denunciation and progressive ploys of adverse actions? Federal Disability Retirement is often the best option to escape from the toxicity of the work environment.

Filed through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker who is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset must call in one’s own HazMat team; for, surely, there is no designated group who can clean up the mess of such spillage as occurs in the Federal sector or the U.S. Postal Service. Nay, it is worse than the nightmarish scene as portrayed by men in white suits; it is the ultimate horror show from which there can be only one escape: Filing for Federal Disability Retirement through OPM.

Knowledge can be a dangerous commodity; partial, or little knowledge, can be all the more damaging, precisely because actions can result based upon incomplete information and slices of factually curtailed composites.

The Court of the Appeals for the Federal Circuit has previously pointed out one of the methodological deficiencies engaged in by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, in its review and determination of Federal Disability Retirement cases: of focusing upon that which is not included in a Federal Disability Retirement application, as opposed to reviewing the information of what has been received.

Such a distinction may be a subtle one, and a difference which can be easily overlooked, but it reveals much more than mere word-play. For, what it manifests is an application of a criteria based upon an erroneous assumption, and one which continues to be applied to this day, despite case-law which admonishes OPM to the contrary.

Vanieken-Ryals v. OPM, a 2007 Federal Court of Appeals case, points out the error of OPM’s ways in Federal Disability Retirement cases, where insistence upon “objective” medical evidence continues to dominate, despite the lack of such requirement to the contrary. Such an issue is especially relevant, of course, in cases where psychiatric medical conditions prevail, and when OPM insists upon the lack of such “objective” medical evidence where none can be obtained, it leads to Federal and Postal employees to react desperately in a preemptively unreasonable frenzy of actions.

Not knowing the law is one thing; knowing, but deliberately ignoring it, is quite another. But the price Federal and Postal employees pay for when a bureaucracy engages in practices which clearly defy the clear mandate of legal requirement, results in preemptive actions which ultimately lead to another day in Court, to argue that which one thought was previously already established.

Change is an inevitable circumstance of life; it is what we seek when we are discontented; what we demand when threatened; and of which we fear, when least we expected it. For Plato and Aristotle, the puzzle of life and the winds of change had precursors who, in the tradition of ancestral doomsayers, declared the natural corollaries reflecting discontent, despair and fear, as represented by Heraclitus and Parmenides.

Such change was first observed in the natural order of the universe, and worked slowly, deliberately, and sought a teleological understanding because of the mysteries inherent in the seasons, the heavens and the geocentric perspective defied by the reality of a heliocentric algorithm of calculations. At some point in history, man was no longer satisfied with measuring with thumb and forefinger; and thus were pyramids built and Stonehenge created, to satisfy the yearnings of universal comprehension.

Changes did not just occur from the ashes of natural disasters; we invited them, manufactured them, and manipulated the vast conspiracy of quietude, lest we became comfortable in our own discordant behavior.

For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suddenly find that a long and productive career may come to an end because of an intervening medical condition, the winds of of change may seem uninviting, but the inevitability of life’s resistance to permanence requires taking affirmative steps in order to establish future security, such that change which portends alterations of present circumstances does not pretend to make promises falsely expected.

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal or Postal employee is under FERS, CSRS or CSRS Offset, is an option to be taken when once a medical condition is recognized to last a minimum of 12 months (which can be accomplished through a medical “prognosis” as opposed to actually waiting for that period of time) and where the chronicity of the medical conditions prevent one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s Federal or Postal positional requirements of the job.

Seven False Myths about OPM Disability Retirement

1) I have to be totally disabled to get Postal or Federal disability retirement.
False: You are eligible for disability retirement so long as you are unable to perform one or more of the essential elements of your job. Thus, it is a much lower standard of disability.

2) My injury or illness has to be job-related.
False: You can get disability even if your condition is not work related. If your medical condition impacts your ability to perform any of the core elements of your job, you are eligible, regardless of how or where your condition occurred.

3) I have to quit my federal job first to get disability.
False: In most cases, you can apply while continuing to work at your present job, to the extent you are able.

4) I can't get disability if I suffer from a mental or nervous condition.
False: If your condition affects your job performance, you can still qualify. Psychiatric conditions are treated no differently from physical conditions.

5) Disability retirement is approved by DOL Workers Comp.
False: It's the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the federal agency that administers and approves disability for employees at the US Postal Service or other federal agencies.

6) I can wait for OPM disability retirement for many years after separation.
False: You only have one year from the date of separation from service - otherwise, you lose your right forever.

7) If I get disability retirement, I won't be able to apply for Scheduled Award (SA).
False: You can get a Scheduled Award under the rules of OWCP even after you get approved for OPM disability retirement.